Is Rick Warren a Vampire?

That's one hypothesis to explain the spell of glamour that Rick Warren has cast recently. Despite what you might have heard, Warren has never publicly voiced support for civil unions, and his church refuses to accept lesbian and gay members.

That's the truth. Now let's take a closer look at the glamour.

Reporters and pundits throughout the mainstream media have repeated over and over again the incorrect assertion that Warren supports civil unions. There appears to be a single source document for this assertion, an interview with Warren conducted on December 15th by Beliefnet.

Here's the portion of the interview that continues to be cited:

BELIEFNET: One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. ... Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

WARREN: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

WARREN: You know, not a problem with me.

In their enthusiasm to be contrarian -- or perhaps just out of unwarranted optimism -- a significant number of gay bloggers also picked up on this quote and other parts of the interview used them to argue that this mythical support constitutes a point of agreement with Warren upon which we should build.

The problem is that, as of yet, there is no actual area of agreement. Warren's words have been taken out of context by both the mainstream media and the gay bloggers and they have ignored the clarifications on his remarks that he submitted to Beliefnet on December 15th. The truth is that Warren never meant to imply that he supported civil unions at all.

Take a look at the clarifications:

Re: BELIEFNET: ...Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues... a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage. It's just not there.

and

Re: BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital.

In other words, Warren supports the ability of lesbian or gay men to put their partners -- or even perfect strangers -- on their insurance coverage and to visit one another in the hospital just like any "friend" might be able to do. By any definition, that falls far short of the marriage-in-all-but-name set of rights that most people imagine when they think about civil unions or domestic partnerships. And it certainly falls short of the protections that lesbian and gay people need to protect our loved ones and our families.

Warren goes even further in his clarifying remarks and, yet again, repeats his comparisons of same-sex marital relationship to incest:

BOTTOM LINE:

1. God...has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage....

2. God gives me the free choice...so I must allow others to have that same free choice...In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.

3. If...homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage...Incest is not marriage...

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

Most recently, Warren is getting a lot of play in the media for his comment, "I also happen to love gays..." and, at the event during which he made this remark, apparently cast his glamour over Melissa Etheridge and her wife Tammy Lynn, who are out stumping on his behalf on the news and in the blogosphere.

The best way to understand Warren's remark about supposedly loving "gays" is to look at his own church's policy statement about lesbian and gay people [note: this citation is from a secondary source since the primary source to which it refers has apparently been taken offline sometime on or after December 21st]:

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

The Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

...We must not act as if homosexuality is the only serious sexual sin, and we must not act as if homosexuality is not a serious sexual sin.

I've heard it asked, "Isn't being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?" First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that's obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.

...Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church -- we hope they do! God's Word has the power to change our lives...

It's the same-old, same-old "love the sinner/hate the sin" rationale. Nothing is new here -- except for now Warren has added added alcoholism to the list of disordered behaviors to which he has compared lesbian and gay marital relationships.

Certainly, there is no "love" in the sense of recognizing lesbian and gay people as people whose sexual orientation is an integrated part of their humanity as a whole or as first-class citizens whose adult relationships and families deserve equal recognition under the United States Constitution.

Now, let me be clear: I would love to be wrong.

I would love nothing more than to hear Rick Warren overtly and publicly express his support for full legal recognition for same-sex couples at a state and federal level under any name. I would love for the fact that Saddleback Church decided to remove such divisive language from its website to be an indication that Warren is re-thinking his understanding of what it means to be gay or lesbian.

But -- until I hear a clear, unambiguous statement from Rick Warren's own lips to this effect -- I am protecting my neck and keeping garlic and a wooden stake handy.

Comments

[Johnathan Wilber - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you! Just the kind of humor and information that needs to be out in the conversation.

[toffekins]

christians must first be true to ALL of christ's teachings, before they can claim the moral authority to teach others by their example.

case in point:
In Matt 19:4-6 Jesus says,

“Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? They are no longer two therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.”

yes, jesus defines marriage as between man and woman, BUT he also, in the same breath, forbids divorce.

christians cannot in good conscience condemn gay marriage without equally condemning divorce.

[panthergod]

Of course. Why isn't the divorcee community taking arms against this christian oppression?

[toffekins]

because divorce is so widespread it is endemic in every christian denomination, liberals and conservative alike.

what oppression? has anyone been denied the "right" to divorce yet?

[Br0nwyn]

Obama is a very intelligent man and I believe he already knows that being everyone's president does not mean he has to elevate every person who expresses an intolerant opinion to an honored status. His choice of Rick Warren and his statements in defense of his choice makes it fairly clear that he does not recognize Warren's denial of LGBT people as whole, healthy, valuable members of society for the intolerance it is. If he did he would see that Warren no more belongs on the inaugural stage than would someone who openly professes anti semitic views or White supremacist views. Even in our imperfect world, I wish for a President of my country whose principles would include respecting the worth and dignity of all people everywhere, including LGBT people. If as some suggest, this has all been a big mistake on the part of this otherwise carefully considered, historically well-researched political team, I wish for a leader with the character to admit their mistake and not be afraid to reverse a bad decision.

[Br0nwyn]

Thanks go out to Renna for assembling a clear body of evidence that shows Rick Warren's undeniable bigotry. Warren's own clarifications reveal the kind of circular logic and false juxtapositions used by Rush Limbaugh and others to advance intolerance, divisiveness, and the supremacy of some (Christians, heterosexuals, Republicans, Conservatives, etc.) over others (non-Christians, homosexuals, Liberals, etc.). There is a difference between working to advance the rights of one's own group, as gay rights and black civil rights activists do, and working to diminish the rights of another, as Christian fundamentalists do to homosexual people and White supremacists do to People of Color and Jewish people.

In a perfect world faith leaders would not use the pulpit to advance intolerance, but I'm not naive enough to expect to live in a perfect world. Neither am I naive enough to think or expect Barak Obama to be perfect. What Obama does seem to be is highly principled, that is his actions and decisions seem to follow his own thoroughly considered set of principles. What I had hoped prior to this turn of events was that those principles included appreciating and respecting the full humanity of all people.

[Mildmannered]

thank you for your service to our country

[Pinkydoo]

If only we could skip the invocation entirely and start the seperation of church and state at the inaugural level. Now that would be change!!

[Missmn]

Amen.

[pir anha]

frankly, i really don't care whether rick warren overtly and publicly express his support for full legal recognition for same-sex couples at a state and federal level under any name, or for the fact that saddleback church decided to remove such divisive language from its website to be an indication that warren is rethinking his understanding of what it means to be gay or lesbian. well, i sorta care in an "oh, if only these christians were more christian" sense -- but really, it's none of my business.

what they believe about gay and lesbians is their business. whether they want gays and lesbians as members of their church (i bet transgendered don't need to apply either), that's also their business.

what isn't their business is on whom the state confers the right to marry. even jesus understood the difference between god and state -- "render unto caesar the things which are caesar’s, and unto god the things that are god’s". evangelical christians own neither the concept of nor the word marriage.

[Broderick]

One thing I do notice, people really hate the thought that God wants them to live a righteous life. All ministers are not hucksters and I am not necessarily defending Rick Warren. I know I am sounding religious here but God is calling for holiness and for a people that don't make excuses for committing and living in sin. I am not the way Jesus is the Way and He loves everybody.

[SocksForChristmas]

Maybe they just have a different opinion of what is righteous. I don't trust anyone who frowns upon sincere love between consenting adults to tell ME what is right!

[LaurenLK]

I agree completely. I dont' think that the church's anti-gay stance is biblical. If God is love then where love is then so is God. And the beautiful relationships that people create should always be respected. But others think differently. they have the right to. And unfortunately they have had the power to legally define the civil rights that attend to marriage in this country. We should definitely work to change this. But we are never going to change the hearts and minds of some of these Christians. If anything, we (who believe) can only pray that Jesus changes their hearts, and shows them the error of their ways. All this is completely beside the point that Obama is not taking an anti-gay stance by having Warren read a prayer. He's taking the stance, which people here cannot seem to grasp, that just because someone is completely wrong about something ,we shouldn't hate them for it. And where they do good, they should be respected. Gay and progressive Christians will continue to fight to show that love can't be a sin. Meanwhile, we still all have to get along. I agree with the people who have stated that what the REAL fight should be is getting the religious union of marriage completely separated from the state sanctioned civil union, for gay and straight.

[pir anha]

i always like to let the bible speak when christians get their religion involved in affairs of state:

Matthew 7:1-5

Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

[Broderick]

I guess I really stirred things up here, I am not small minded and I love every single person on the face of the earth. I am not homophobic but most importantly you can view the bible as an antiquated old book that was edited to suit the thoughts of a certain denomination and it's very odd I didn't say one thing about homosexuality being an abomination, it is sin just like all the rest and must be dealt with. Maybe you are not Christian and don't believe that the atoning act of Christ dying on the cross was for all people and all sinners. I have not put gayness in any particular level of degradation, the fact remains that God loves all of his creation but He does not love sin. He sent Jesus to die for ALL sinners. The whoremonger, thief, the liar, the murderers etc was who Jesus died for. One thing about human nature we want to have our cake and eat it too, you are either a Christian or you or not, you can't dissect the bible to suit you and fashion a religion just is appealing to you. The Bible is the word of God and I know that God is Love.

[talkstocoyotes]

"it is sin just like all the rest and must be dealt with. Maybe you are not Christian and don't believe that the atoning act of Christ dying on the cross was for all people and all sinners. I have not put gayness in any particular level of degradation, the fact remains that God loves all of his creation but He does not love sin. He sent Jesus to die for ALL sinners."

I'm not Christian but I do know that not all Christians define homosexuality as sin. Moreover, homophobic Christians don't seem too squeamish about lying to advance the holy cause of political power -- or for winking at divorce, for that matter.

It would make as much sense for you to assert that Jesus died for left-handed people.

[Researchguy66]

You are NOT going to get an invite to the inauguration posting things like this. Next time, please read your directives from the home office more carefully. Inattention to detail may be reflected in your annual review.

[DS3M]

I don't recall the concept of marriage as being the sole property of judeo-christian ethics...

[Broderick]

Do we have another religious tradition that accepts marriage between members of the same sex?

[SocksForChristmas]

Unitarians and some Quakers.

[jjasper]

Neo-Paganism.

[mommadona]

Rick of the Warren comes from a long line of 'Hucksters for Christ"...­.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3JbWLc4Vb8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUZ_-5e6G7Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocW5ovSXpZw&feature=related

NEVER smile at a crocodile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX4_WHBNskc

[rasthedestroyer]

Warrens not a VaMpIRE.. He's an opportunis­t... Jesus can get you paid , if you know how to spin it... now if you want to talk about VAmPirEs.. look to ROmE... i think you might just find some there...

[french62]

As an escaped Catholic there are many loving, tolerant, and giving people in this global cult. We can't paint all of them as vampiric. However, my personal belief is that the Vatican, Pope, and Catholic leadership is one of many Great Whores of Babylon described in the Bible. Most, if not all organized religions fit this description in my estimation. They are the TRUE Anti-Christs of the modern world. But hey, that's just one persons opinion. All I can say is "Love the one your with."

[eden4barack08]

I'm sorry, but maybe it is because I'm not clouded by anger or hurt, but the more I'm forced to research this man whose name I'd never even heard of until the Presidential debate in August, the less hateful I find him. And believe me, I'd started out with a very negative view of him since that "cone of silence" fiasco.
I find his views to be, yes backwards, yes ingrained in an interpretation of the bible not unlike his h8ful right wing preachers predecessors, but much much more inclusive, accepting, and open. Most of all, I just can't find the h8 in what he says. Just plenty of differences which I have no pretense of ever bridging, but that I can respectfully disagree with, and maybe hope for change in time.
Here's another clarification from him:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1

[johnsonc20]

So, that means you think it is a good idea that Barack Obama invited Warren to speak at the inauguration? He is less hateful than your run of the mill Southern Baptist minister? I think you need to read the article above a little more carefully. Rick Warren shows great promise in public relations, but his bigoted views are very standard fare for a televangelist. Obama brought this firestorm on himself and, as the master political calculator he is, I hope he is taking notice.

[LaurenLK]

What "firestorm?" Not even the entire gay community is angry, just a vocal minority. Obama doesn't care about pandering to a tiny segment of a small community. He is trying to govern an entire nation of people with radically different worldviews. Most of us think he is going to do a terrific job. The people who are mad about this will be made about something else next week that is just as inane, and they dont' get people elected anyway.

[JimR]

You are every bit as intolerant as you claim Warren is.

[bubbuh]

Life's a beeatch isn't it? Warren should be an east target. Despite, his banana whacky "Bible based" views and the sometimes abhorrent things he has said, he's actually an honest and caring person who puts his money and his heart where his mouth is.
http://formerlygay.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/rick-warren-aids-and-the-saddleback-church/

[eden4barack08]

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1723

This link works.

[Broderick]

People although the Bible has been interpretated a thousand different ways, the truth is the truth. There is no model of marriage in the bible between members of the same sex. You can believe what you want but that doesn't make it right. If we could take out of the bible what we want to please ourselves that invalidates God's word. You can't take what you chose to believe is true and discard the rest. God loves homosexuals, just like he loves whoremongers but both of them have to repent of their sins and do it God's way. We can take any other book at face value but when it comes to the scripture we want to make it something that we have the ability to interpret like we want to. Sin in the eyes of God is all unrighteous acts. The wise man in Proverbs said, "there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end there of is the way of death.

[Tavat]

"You can't take what you chose to believe and discard the rest."

Ummm, okay. So we are to assume you stone adulterers, own slaves and rape the women of rival villages all under the aegis of "God"? If not, quick picking parts out and be a serious Christian, hypocrite.

[DS3M]

I don't recall the concept of marriage as being the sole property of judeo-christian ethics...

[onagadori]

Just because you use the bible to define your reality, please, please, be aware that many other people do not. You're just quoting a book, and an old antiquated one at that. I'm really sorry that your mind is so small that you think that one book defines the entirity of reality. I couldn't care less what it says and I refuse to have my entire life, and the legal system of my country, defined by your antiquated book! Keep your religion to yourself and realize that what applies to you does not apply to me, because if one belief must define all belief, you may wake up one day to find that your book has lost out and another one has won and now they are defining your reality quite against your will. Then, wow, what a victim of oppression you will be!

[Missmn]

"You can believe what you want but that doesn't make it right. "

Irony alert, anyone?

[jpopphan]

So when will you and other "Christians" like Rick Warren take on the "abomination" of those who consume shellfish? Why aren't you out picketing in front of every Red Lobster restaurant?

And what about those textile mills where they produce cloth made from mixed fibers? That's a no-no, too.

Are you circumsized? If not, when do you plan on cutting off your foreskin?

Why is it only the "men laying with men" part that is important? Aren't there lots and lots more verses in Leviticus?

And don't throw Romans at me either. Paul wrote that letter (which was heavily edited by the Catholic Church) so it isn't gospel and doesn't reflect the teachings of Jesus. I doubt that Jesus would be in favor of same-sex marriage, but he wasn't much of a fan of mixed-sex marriage either.

When YOU start living to the letter of Biblical law, along with Rick Warren and other so-called "Christians", then maybe we can have a discussion. Until then, keep your religion to yourself.